AutosportsNorthwest.org

Skid

Where :
Currently planned at Palenque Mexican Restaurant, same as last year and I'm working on getting confirmation of our reservation.

When :
Sat. February 11, 2011
Appetizers at 5:30
Meeting at 6:00

Ladies and Gentleman,

I apologize for not being a little quicker with the formal introductions of the new leadership team but rest assured there has been plenty going on behind the scenes to set things up for next year and transitioning information and responsibilities from Logr and Mikey V to myself and the new group. We have a great team being pulled together and after a few phone calls this week to confirm a couple of chiefs, I'll be posting a new thread to formally introduce us all. There are still a couple chief positions and dedicated roles that need filled - if you spoke with me at the banquet, please send a PM, email, or call as I do not have everyones contact information.

That said, we are now starting to get closer to time for our annual membership meeting. This will be the meeting where we will be discussing and voting on new changes for our club. This is an important meeting and is the best time for you to come out and have some input into how ASNW is run.

Currently there are only a couple of items up for real discussion and votes.

The first, which is not really up for a vote, is that we will only have 6 event weekends this year. An early test and tune may occur but that is an item that is still being discussed. Having only 6 events had a few advantages for us and the club. First it allows those who run slicks to make a full season on a single set of tires. Second, it prevents burning out the new leadership and new chiefs as we get everyone trained up and new volunteers commiting to the club. Third, it will allow Octocross to be held in late September at SCR so we'll have a bit better weather - yes, we're still planning to call it Octocross as it has become a bit of a tradition. The schedule is still being put together as other clubs in the area are beginning to fomalize their schedules and we can do our best to avoid over lapping different schedules. We will have a schedule put together prior to the meeting and posted.

However, since we are moving to only 6 event weekends, for a total of 11 events (Octocross weekend still counts as a single event), we will need to re-evaluate how we count points towards season trophies. Currently we are planning to maintain the same formula as we did for 2011.

The second big item that will require a vote is directly related to safety. This is an item that all the officers feel very strongly about. However, it was voted out by the club and therefore I believe it should also be voted back in.

This issue is roll-over protection for convertibles and non-enclosed vehicles. The proposed change would require either an OEM roll bar or an aftermarket roll bar for any vehicle without a permantly attached roof. The roll bar can either span the entire width of the cockpit or it can be 'individual seat' style hoops that several OEM's install, i.e. MX-5's, Spyders, etc. This last year we did have an incident where a car came to a stop upside down and fortunately the driver suffered only minor injuries. I, and many others, strongly believe the outcome would have been different if there was not a roll bar. Autocross is by far and large one of the safer forms of racing, but, it is still racing and drivers are consistently pushing the limit of both their car and their skill. Things happen. The vast majority of newer OEM convertibles come roll-over protection and we do not feel that this rule would impede or limit many racers while adding a significant emphasis by the club on driver safety.

Again, this is something a lot of us feel very strongly about but ASNW is a club and as such, this should be a decision made by the members.

I believe that it is in terms of big items that we will address at the meeting. Please feel free to discuss these issues in this thread as I am sure there are additional thoughts. And, if you have any other thoughts for changes, please feel free to post them here or contact me and I can discuss them with the officers and get it out for public discussion.

Thank you,

Lee Skidmore
lskidmor@vt.edu or president@answ.org
208-290-5585
_________________
93' Legacy SS, #555
96' Legacy Outback

jrhaile · Joined: 06 May 2006 Posts: 665 Location: Spokane, Wa

The Germans celebrate Oktoberfest in September so calling it Octocross still works Very Happy

_________________

gustav129 · Joined: 13 Jul 2007 Posts: 524 Location: Coeur d'Alene, ID

Marked on the Calendar, thanks!
_________________
Under steer is when you hit the wall with your front end. Over steer is when you hit the wall with your rear end. Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall. Torque is how far you move the wall.
RGL Motorsports #129

gustav129 · Joined: 13 Jul 2007 Posts: 524 Location: Coeur d'Alene, ID

logr · Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:10 am Post subject:

We need to remember the car that ended up on it's top was due to a suspension failure which could have happened anywhere since he was going in a straight line at the time. It was also an aftermarket, super duper, non breakable part, uh, huh.

Bottom line is we don't want anyone hurt under any circumstances and some older cars are not known for their safety records.

I was in favor of removing the rule, mostly due to SCCA not requiring one, but after seeing a car with a windshield flat and the roll bar holding up the car. I vote for reinstatement.
_________________
logr

gustav129 · Joined: 13 Jul 2007 Posts: 524 Location: Coeur d'Alene, ID

I am voting for the reinstatement. Personally, there's no such thing as being "too safe".

My post was to gain a clarification on the bold parts.
_________________
Under steer is when you hit the wall with your front end. Over steer is when you hit the wall with your rear end. Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall. Torque is how far you move the wall.
RGL Motorsports #129

CW · Joined: 20 Oct 2011 Posts: 18 Location: Spokane, Wa

I'm curious how this will effect me?
The vette is a targa style w/ removable roof. Which I have to remove to make room for the helmet.
I see a removable roof is like the hard top I used to use on the Healey, that replaced the rag top.
And when removed left NO overhead support.
What do you think? Am I legal?
_________________
Chuck White
1986 Corvette Black

asajay · Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:16 pm Post subject:

Is there a structural body member directly behind the driver, ala a loop.

If the entire roof comes off, side-windows back-glass and all, with nothing sticking up higher than the doors, except the Windshield, then, no.

My opinion,
Asa Jay
_________________
1973 DeTomaso Pantera L 5533
http://www.racingagainstautism.com

mitchman · Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 263 Location: Kennewick, WA

Personally, in addition to a roll bar, I think people should be required to have fire suppression systems in all vehicles used for autocross purposes. Heck, a fire proof suit should also be required. After all, it will make everyone safer and you can't argue against something that will make people safer.

(sarcasm)
_________________
2006 Mazda MX 5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com

Arghetlam · Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:36 pm Post subject:

I do have to agree with Mitch, there is such a thing as being too safe.

What I'm seeing is that we're saying every drop top car has to have a roll bar. So does that mean that even novices have to buy a roll bar, or they can't race? That, to me, seems like a great idea - to turn people off, that is.

I say we can keep the roll bars as optional, but have an additional waiver for them to sign, something to the tune of, "I don't have a roll bar, but still chose to race, so if I go upside down, it's my own fault." In prettier language.

That's just my two cents.
_________________
Cars do not belong in museums. If you're not going to drive it, you should be forced to relinquish it to someone who will.

jrhaile · Joined: 06 May 2006 Posts: 665 Location: Spokane, Wa

logr · Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:56 am Post subject:

We are not saying "every drop top car". We are saying the old cars that have no kind of roll over protection whatsoever( the kind that the windshield folds flat and the person is the next thing to get flattened) need something to keep the driver safe.

This car could have tires with 4 times the grip it was originally designed for and doing maneuvers the designers never contemplated. We allow modification of all sorts of things to make it turn better and yet we don't require anything safety oriented to update the car to it's turning ability while asking it to turn at it's limit.

A simple roll bar is not too much to ask for everyone to go home from a great day of autox versus the alternative.

It is not worth the risk for me.

Being reasonable is reasonable. A certain amount of safety is a good thing.
_________________
logr

mitchman · Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 263 Location: Kennewick, WA

livenfine · Joined: 18 May 2008 Posts: 284

I'm ok with the rule because my MX5 apparently is legal, but I would be adamantly against it if I had to modify my ride just to race at ASNW. Maybe we should say convertibles before 1990?

Skid · Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:43 pm Post subject:

Sounds like some good discussion. I have some thoughts on what all has been stated thus far.

With regards to T-tops and Targa top - If there is a B-pillar behind the driver's door that goes up into the roof then the B-pillar on both sides of the car and the roof would consitute a stress carrying loop. Therefore I would say these cars would have factory roll over protection. The body may have more flex than a fully closed roof but a fully closed roof also ties the A-pillar into the system and creates a shear panel of the roof which provides considerable more stiffness than just the B-pillar loop. But the B-pillar roof does provide crush resistance if a car gets rolled.

With regards to the discussions of being overly safety consious - I agree there is a limit and the club should recognize that speeds are generally low and that autocross is a pretty safe form of racing. However, the threat of a roll is present and could result from more factors than just old cars with sticky tires. Having a simple form of roll protection is really pretty mild in terms of crash safety regulations.

Having additional waivers provide minimal legal coverage. Waivers simply provide grounds for defense but do not protect against lawsuits and the costs associated with defending them. I do not see have an extra waiver as a work around to this rule as being a viable option.

Along those lines, it is worth noting that there is much more at stake than just an inconvenience to those who would need to add an item to their car to meet this requirement. ASNW is a small club with a small budget. It is managed and run by volunteers. The club needs to be honest with itself and understand the impact a serious accident would have. A serious accident will very likely result in legal action against ASNW, regardless of waivers and regulations. However, rules such as roll-over protection would provide safety to the club in court, and most importantly - goes a VERY long way to preventing a serious accident in the first place.

I know I am not the only one within ANSW who has first hand knowledge of these issues. But for the last 5 years I have lived and breathed aerospace design and manufacturing of both parts and completed aircraft and liability is not something taken lightly with plenty of recurring training. Most of which drives home just how messy things can get for all involved parties in a serious accident.

This rule is about preventing that serious accident. It has merit and it has impacts. While we as a club consider the trade-offs and balances, we need to make sure we are seeing the entire scope of the issue.

We should also keep in mind that this is not new to the club and it was not that far in the past where this rule was in place.

All that said, please feel free to keep discussing this issue. There are always additional view points, knowledge, and understanding that can be gained.
_________________
93' Legacy SS, #555
96' Legacy Outback

mitchman · Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 263 Location: Kennewick, WA

EDIT
_________________
2006 Mazda MX 5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com

kelsosmith1989 · Joined: 14 Jan 2009 Posts: 125 Location: Moses Lake, WA

Looking at the part that failed, I really couldn't see any structural reason it failed. It doesn't look like there was anything weak, broken, whatever before it let go. I think part of it is really just a bit of bad luck.

Part of the problem with rollover protection is, it's not just convertibles with the problem. Most older cars are going to react in pretty much the same way. Look at the A-pillar on most cars from the 60's-70's, convertible or not, every one will fold up like a tin can under any sort of load. Hardtops did get safer sooner, but there's still the danger. Notice how A-pillars have gotten way thicker in the last 20-25 years? They're not making cars out of the tin they used to be able to get away with, and the steel used is better. Most modern (early-mid '90s, I don't remember when the regulations started) convertibles have boron steel in the A-pillar/window frame, which is very strong.

I will say though, especially considering we have no plan in place for what to do if there is some sort of accident, at least that I know of, I was really quite impressed with the way everyone was able to unify and act and lift that car and get him out. Having said that, I do think that, if we don't, there needs to be some sort of plan/procedure/whatever for if there is some sort of incident on course. I know after the incident, and myself feeling a little useless with no equipment, I went and assembled myself a bit of an advanced first aid kit (for lack of a better term), that I bring with me to each event, for just such occasion.
_________________

1997 Ford Thunderbird - 12 ESP 2008-2012
19?? ????? ????????????????? - 50 ??? 2013-on

mitchman · Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 263 Location: Kennewick, WA

Good idea Kelsey.

There's a good discussion about roll over's on the SCCAForums. I didn't realize that the SCCA has banned certain cars due to rollover concerns. The one's they talk about in the thread are the new Fiat 500 and Nissan Juke. Interesting. I must admit, if someone with a Fiat 500 showed up to one of our events, I wouldn't have thought to not let him run.

http://www.sccaforums.com/forums/forumid/8/threadid/419685/scope/posts/threadpage/1
_________________
2006 Mazda MX 5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com

mitchman · Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 263 Location: Kennewick, WA

Here's the official stance from the SCCA: (from the January 2012 FastTrack)

Based on a lack of sufficient information, the SEB is not classing the Fiat 500 at this time due to concerns about its not meeting rollover resistance requirements. (#4576)
_________________
2006 Mazda MX 5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com

gustav129 · Joined: 13 Jul 2007 Posts: 524 Location: Coeur d'Alene, ID

SCCA's rollover standards are in regards of height vs wheel width. That's also why a Scion xB (or what ever the box shaped one is called) cannot be ran.
_________________
Under steer is when you hit the wall with your front end. Over steer is when you hit the wall with your rear end. Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall. Torque is how far you move the wall.
RGL Motorsports #129